I’m aware that attitudes in society, and even in the LGBT community, about trans women are often negative and sometimes hostile. As a trans woman, the idea of being arrested is a scary thought because I know those negative and hostile attitudes are at least as commonplace in police officers as they are in broader society.

When I went to jail over the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) back in March 2010, I had one park police officer refer to me as an “impersonator,” and a federal marshal refer to me as an “it” and a “shim.” I felt somewhat fortunate to not have been physically or sexually abused after handcuffing myself to the White House fence, even though I knew that by getting arrested in that direct action I might have been.

I know how badly trans people have been treated by officers of the law, so I’m not easily shocked when I hear horror stories about police mistreatment of trans people. But, even I was shocked pretty deeply watching the raw video of the arrest of Brooke Fantelli.

Standing, hands up in the air with no visible resistance to arrest, Ranger Petter tazed Brooke in the abdomen. At slightly more than 50 seconds into the video, the ranger tazed her a second time – this time in the crotch.

Back when Brooke Fantelli was known as Rodd Fantelli, she was a well known off-road race driver who won numerous races. She owns Fantelli Racing Products in Ramona, a custom off-road fabrication shop with 20 years of fabrication and racing history – she’s still a well known figure in the off-road racing community.

Oct. 22 she was out in the Imperial County desert on federal land. With her were a long-time friend, a photographer, two models and a preteen who was a child of one of the models. They were out in the desert to take photos of the two models for their portfolios, and they were using one of Brooke’s trucks and the desert as the backdrop for the photos.

According to Brooke, a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ranger by the name of Petter came by to see what the group was doing. Ranger Petter, in the process of finding out what they were doing, looked at the identification of all of the members of the group, and this is where the problems began.

Although Brooke began her transition two years ago, Brooke’s California driver’s license still had her old male name and her old male photo. She was incorrectly told by her physician that she needed to live two full years as a female before she could change her California identification.

After Ranger Petter saw Brooke’s identification card, Brooke said he went from referring to her as “ma’am,” “her,” and “she” to “sir,” “him,” and “he.” She then said the ranger went to referring to her as “dude.”

After that point, Brooke said the ranger went back to his vehicle – which Brooke said was about four or five car lengths from where the group was taking photographs – and watched the group from that distance for an hour and seventeen minutes. Brooke remembers drinking two-and-a-half beers during that hour and seventeen minutes; the ranger said she drank four beers. She went over to the ranger to tell him that he was making the models nervous, and said she told him it was time to “mosey along.” As she was talking to the ranger, officers from the Federal Park Police and Imperial County Sheriffs Department came over a hill.

Seconds later, she was told by the ranger that he was arresting her for being drunk in public. With her hands in the air as she was about to be arrested, the eight-and-a-half minute video shows her being tazed twice and then arrested. After the video, Brooke said he referred to her as “it,” “ thing,” and “that whatever.”

I spent Nov. 28 with Brooke when she was told to show up at court to be arraigned. The district attorney hasn’t filed charges.

Maybe it’s because the lab report for the emergency room visit after the arrest showed there was no testing accomplished – she didn’t agree to a breathalyzer test; no urine was collected for analysis; and the blood test she had after the tazing didn’t include testing for blood alcohol count. Or, maybe it’s because the district attorney knows that the problematic video of the arrest is available.

Brooke will very likely be filing a civil suit over the incident, and God, I hope so.

This is such a horrid story. Just watch the exclusive video and see if you see a problem with the arrest.

I have had one interaction with the police while I was en femme, and it was positive. I suspect that incidents like mine happen more often than we know, but because nothing bad happened, the story is not told as often.

I went out to see a movie. I was dressed as a female. On the way home, my car broke down. I reached for my cell phone, which I keep for just such an emergency. It did not have a charge. I went to look for a pay phone, and I lost my shoes in a sidewalk that was never shovelled. I went back to the car, barefoot, and borrowed someone’s phone. I called my insurance company for a tow, and was told that the tow truck would arrive in three hours. That tow truck never arrived, and because I was in the City of Detroit, no one was going to stop to help me during the night. I had to spend the night in the car, with no heat and no shoes. In the morning, I managed to flag someone down and to make another call to the insurance company. While I was waiting for the new tow truck (this time, about two hours), a police officer stopped to talk to me. He was very polite. He did ask for my driver’s license and registration, and I pulled off my wig so that he could see that I matched the photo. As I said, he was polite. His big concern was to get me out of the cold and into a hospital, where they could check me for frostbite, which it turns out I did have. (I now have a pair of boots and an insulated coverall in my car, just in case it breaks down.)

As I said, you often don’t hear these stories in which the police treat someone with respect, because they are less eventful than the stories of disrespect. Still, they exist. I now have one.

I certainly am glad that I encountered the police officer whom I did, and not the officer in this story. I know that those sorts are out there, and I hope to be lucky enough to stay away from them.

Does it possibly occur to you that you were in a bad situation, and that the person here was intoxicated (at least in the view of the officer) and that the person involved here refused a reasonable order by the officer, and then continued to argue and resist? What happened to you is not at all unusual nor is what happened here. There are, of course, exceptions, but by and large the police simply do their jobs, and any unpleasantness is based on the behavior of the person dealing with the police, and not prejudice by the police. If this person did not identify as transgender, this would not even by an issue. It would be nothing more than someone griping about how the police treated them with most people simply thinking, “Hey, you act like a fool, and you can expect to get treated like one.”

I’m afraid that you would be sorely mistaken. Police by and large act just like the population they police, no worse, and certainly no better. This was more than likely a discriminatory assault. Trans women are open for it in our society, and police are known to use violence to acheive behavior modification in subjects to excess on a daily basis.

Simply put, I disagree. Being a “trans woman” does not excuse someone from obeying the law, and using that as an excuse to claim brutality is lame. Even if the arrest was groundless, the person in question resisted arrest. That was not a legally justifiable move, and what resulted is not out of line. Sorry, I don’t accept identity politics.

Two thoughts….if a police officer tells you to lie face down, it is a pretty stupid move to say no. And quite frankly, after watching the video several times (funny how no link was provided) I cannot really tell if the ranger shot this person in the crotch or not. The first tazing was obvious, and quite bluntly, arguably justified. The second is questionable, though it does appear that the person continued to resist even as they were being arrested.

Simple fact. If you want EQUAL rights, don’t complain when you are treated as anyone else would be under the circumstances. If a police officer gives an order, and you ignore him, he is probably going to do something you will find very unpleasant, even if you think you are special and deserve to be treated with kid gloves. Then turning around and claiming it was because you were “transgender” or anything else, is kind of lame…even if you have radical extremists ready to rally to your aid.

Jennifer ****, you can not hide behind your pseudonym of Just Jennifer here. Why you have chosen to threadshit on a story of a transgendered woman being tasered is beyond my comprehension but all I can think of is that the stories of your being a 60 year old man living in a San Francisco homeless shelter and who spends his days crapping on TG people are actually true.

My appologies all: I’ve spoke to the editor today, and there are technical difficulties with embedding the video on the website. Hopefully, the raw video of the tazing will be up on the website, and linked to this story, very soon.

I don’t know how you would have watched the raw video of the tazing as yet, Just Jennifer, because as of December 3rd the raw video hasn’t been posted anywhere on the web.

LGBT Weekly is only one of two news organizations that have the raw, 8 minute 17 second long video of the tazing at this point. But because of the technical problems on our website, and that the other media outlet chose only to post excerpts of the video, you simply cannot have seen the whole video of the tasing as yet.

I did not claim to have seen the rather long, and somewhat boring, raw video which seems to add a lot of camera shaking and someone carrying on about “police brutality,” how how said person does not want a child watching it. It seems strange that this video does not seem to have much of what the alleged “victim” said (refusing to obey the officer) and arguing with the officers after being down on the ground. The video I saw appears to be from the same source, but it is possible to hear the refusal to obey the ranger’s order, and it does not include the running commentary from the person I assume is filming it. In any case, this video changes nothing. If you refuse to do what the police tell you to do, you are likely to find it very unpleasant. And again, there is nothing that clearly indicates that this person was tased more than once.

I see nothing in the video that clearly shows an officer using a taser a second time. Just because someone claims something happened, does not mean it did. It is obvious that this person was shot with a taser, but nothing else is proven by the video. And I am not going to assume that something happened absent reasonable and clear evidence. Sorry….

Actually, I had listened it to it with the volume turned up, but I did it again. The only thing I can make out is that the ranger says “Let go of your wrists…” and what sounds to me like, “I am not going to tell you again.” Then, yes, the person cries out, but is still not clear if they were tasered again, or if they were subjected to some other effort to restrain them. Clearly, even after being tasered once, and being the process of being arrested, the person is arguing with the rangers, and apparently making physical efforts to resist arrest. Even if the ranger used the taser again, it is clear that the person was not cooperating during the arrest.

I meant starting at about 0:45, ending about about 0:55. I was using headphones, which helped me to hear one of the rangers say they would taze her again. I did hear them asking to let go of her wrist prior to that. However, her holding her wrist doesn’t prevent them from cuffing her, or arresting her. Definitely not taze-worthy, especially considering she was tazed shortly before and as a result may have had strong muscle contractions, which would have made it difficult for her to let go.

Exactly what the ranger says is not clear. In such a situation, we often hear what we want to hear. And if you watch the video, it certainly appears that this person is arguing, AND struggling while the rangers are attempting to use the handcuffs.

I made my statement based on empirical information, not something I wanted to hear. I wanted to know what truly happened, because by only watching the video you can’t tell all of what’s going on, and what you hear mostly is the woman and her kid yelling. As I’d been listening with headphones, I could faintly hear the rangers speaking. So I turned it all the way up (and yes, I had to suffer through the kid and his mom yelling, not fun), and could clearly hear Brooke saying she did nothing wrong. But I could also—and still can—hear one of the rangers say, “You’re under arrest for public intoxication…Let go of your wrist, now. I’m gonna taser you again, let go of your wrist, here is goes…” then Brooke cries out in pain.

I am not disputing that Brooke did not fully comply. I am sharing what is audible (at certain volumes), not filling in the blanks of an indistinct conversation.

you’re a troll. come on over and let me taze you in the crotch simply because you didn’t jump fast enough for me. a tazer is NOT a behavior modification device, just like mace is NOT a shopping advantage tool. go sell your complete bullshit to somebody stupid enough to buy it, because it’s completely worthless.

I have a question Jennifer, what do you do for a living? Are you a columnist or paralegal? I understand you way of reviewing the facts pulled from the video but I think you are missing the “Human” side of things. Where you are correct on some levels the fact of using a Tazar on someone who has surrendered is beyond understanding. Maybe she didn’t move fast enough for the officers, but why does it take so many officers to subdue one person? This is not “Operation Repo” where it’s all staged, this is real life. Think of our tax dollars being spent in an over-dramatic response using a police officer’s already expanded ego. Now I’ve had many police officers as friends, grew up with them and watched their jobs change how they respond to others. In the end one took his wife hostage, one shot a neighbors dog for no real reason, and one even threatened to kill his superior after injesting too much booze. Look at the big picture Jennifer, then look at the human side of the experience and try to put yourself into their shoes. Where logic might be your bible I feel that compassion might be your weakness. Keep an open mind.

Because of the simple fact that a certain person who has been cyberstalking me for years has been present here, you will have to excuse my choice to decline to answer any questions about my current occupation.

And no, it is quite the opposite. I am all too aware of the “Human” side here. As I have said, the vast majority of comments here are centered on the fact that the person tasered identifies as “transgender.” It is clear that many believe that this somehow should grant a person some sort of special protection. I have found this amusing. If the idea is to gain “equal” rights, then it should be accepted that if a person engages in behavior that would result in anyone else being tasered, then even though they identify as transgender, they are going to be tasered as well. Now, if one is claiming “special rights,” then say so, and we can deal with that issue.

I don’t always agree with the response of police officers. For example, the BART Police shot and killed a man here in San Francisco in what I believed was a serious overreaction. The man was clearly mentally ill, and had a knife. He could have been dealt with using a taser, and yet he was shot and killed. That, I consider to be an overreaction. In another case, the San Francisco police shot and wounded a homeless man who was in a wheelchair, again because he had a knife. Now, San Francisco police are not allowed to use tasters, mainly because they have not shown a willingness to have reasonable limitations on their use. Yes, in some cases, the police have used tasters to “punish” people.

Let’s consider the alternative. The police were following appropriate procedures for placing a person under arrest. For the officer’s safety, the subject was asked to lie down. Not a pleasant thing to do, but not unreasonable at all. This puts the person in a position where is it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to attack the officer. Now, it is argued that the person was submissive. From the police point of view, the exact opposite was true. The person was in a position where attacking the officer would be very easy. The person was refusing to cooperate, and the ranger had two choices…use the taser, or engage in a possible violent conflict with the person. If the ranger had not used the taser, the other choice would have involved taking the person down physically, and that might have been even more serious. If the subject had not identified as transgender, would you remotely care?

You see, my mind is open. I am not making a judgement based on this person’s identity. I am looking at the facts, including the human side, and rejecting the irrelevant stuff, and focusing on the real issues.

Autumn,
Right on! ***** claims to have seen a video that was never, as yet, published. Autumn, since this person is well known across the web for being a troll and putting out hate speech against TG people , is here any way the management at LGBT weekly can ban Usher from these pages? I really am tired of seeing Usher crap all over every positive TG article out there. It’s not doing the readership of LGBT weekly any good having Usher here and FWIW Usher has been banned from pretty much every other discussion around.

Give it a rest ****. The video was posted on a local television stations web site. I did not, as I pointed out, claim to have seen the “raw” video, which was not even an issue until the article was revised. As I said, the “raw” video adds nothing to the issue. In any case, I am tired of you cyberstalking me all over the web, using sock puppets to try to cover your tracks.

[…] collected for analysis; and the blood test she had after the tazing didn't … Read more on LGBT Weekly This entry was written by admin, posted on December 4, 2011 at 7:57 pm, and filed under Women […]

You really are as crazy as they say Jennifer *****. Who the hell is ****? You lie continually. As Autumn said, you could not possibly have seen the video on some website because it hasn’t been released. It’s sad that you have to gain attention this way . I wonder how long it will be before this forum bans you as have all other forums . I challenge you to name one single forum that you are a part of. You can’t because everyone has banned you because of lies like these. So sad.

The video has been there for a while. So, again, ****, cut the crap. And really, do you think I am going to remotely help you in your stalking? I am part of plenty of places you don’t know about. I have no doubt that sticks in your craw. Tough….

Just because you support that person does not mean they are not cyberstalking me. I have dealt with this person for over ten years. They are seriously mentally ill. As to being unpleasant…to some I am. I speak the truth, not PC pandering.

Just Jennifer: You do know there are actual recent statistics that show that police officers more often than not use their tasers when not appropriate based on guidelines and policies. Even IF someone is resisting arrest, there is protocol for a reason…so you don’t hurt anyone and so you don’t abuse your power as a gun carrying, taser carrying, baton carrying cop. Not to mention the countless stories of police brutality and torture. So if you honestly think that law enforcement simply does its job, you are seriously living in a dream world.

Oh, I hsve no doubt that the police misuse tasers. That is why I oppose efforts to give them to the local police without strict guidelines for their use, including requiring an investigation of any use just as would occur if a shooting takes place.

But this case, which was caught on video, shows a person refusing a legitimate order. Yes, the police could have simply forced the person to the ground, but that does present a risk to the police. Someone saying “Go ahead and arrest me, but I will not lie down,” is not sufficient. The police do not know if the person is telling the truth. The simple fact is, the police did the same thing they would do to anyone. Making an issue JUST because this person is trangender, and implying that that is the ONLY reason they were tasered, is absurd. This is why some believe transgender extremism is a joke.

ROTFL! I am just pointing out facts. This was not police brutality. He was a person who made the wrong choice. If a police officer is in the process of arresting you, and they say, “Get down, and put your hands behind your back,” and you say “No…” chances are, you will regret it. The police hold all the cards in a case like this…claiming brutality when all they did was respond to a refusal to obey, is just going to look silly. IF the person were in the process of lying down, or if the police had not ordered the person to lie down, the situation would have been quite different. But this is NOT a case of police brutality. It is simply a case that raises questions about the reasoning of those who engage in identity politics.

Reminder to all thread participants: please refrain from using language that can be interpreted as a slur, hate speech, or slanderous and defamatory. This includes respecting the proper use of “he” or “she” and “man” or “woman.” If you’re not sure whether or not your comment is crossing the line, then it probably is, and you will be removed from posting on LGBTWeekly.com. This is a fair warning to all participants. If you have any questions regarding your specific comment, or for more clarification on the matter, please contact ruth@lgbtweekly.com. Thank you for your continued respect for one another!

Well, quite frankly, this sort of post certainly makes it clear why the rangers might have felt it necessary to use a taser on a member of the off-road community who refused to obey an order. And given the rhetoric expressed here, they might be more inclined to use even stronger force the next time.

So, exactly what do you think they did wrong? This person failed to obey a lawful order, which, like it, or not, constitutes resisting arrest, even if the person believed that the arrest was improper. To give an example, if the police have a report of a robbery, and the suspect is described as a certain sex, height, weight, race, and wearing certain clothing, and they see someone meeting that description who happens to be innocent,and proceed to take said person into custody, and that person, knowing they are innocent, fights back, they would then be guilty of a crime. So, even if the person here believed that arrest was improper, they were legally required to submit to arrest. That is why we have courts. So, ALL the rangers did was their jobs, and the fact that the person being arrested is transgender has no bearing on the matter.

The smart move would be to drop this matter, and back away quickly to avoid looking foolish. I also have no doubt that this is the exact opposite of what will happen. We had a similar case a few months ago here in San Francisco. A person was died from a gunshot wound after fleeing the police, and opening fire on the police after being stopped for not having proof of payment on public transit. Now, there was a great amount to outrage because the police had “killed someone for not having a transfer on a bus…” Of course, the fact that he ran, was a wanted fugitive from another city, shot at the police officers, AND it turns out, died when he accidentally shot himself with his own gun, sort of made those who protested the shooting look rather silly.

The person stood there with their hands in the air. There was no reason for the Tazer (electrocution) to be used.

You think American citizens should be obedient in all things, lie prostate on the ground when ordered — or be electrocuted. That thinking runs very contrary to the ideas this nation was founded on and is more appropriate for a brutal police state. It is not an appropriate use of force. The police should not be victimizing members of the public. Petter should be sacked.

What’s your basis for the claim that the victim was told to lay face down, anyway?

I think when a police officer, holding a taser, says “Lay down,” one has to be either a complete moron, or a macho fool, to try to argue. Think for a moment. If a person is standing, even with their hands in the air, they are in a position to attack when the officer comes to put the person in cuffs. Especially if they are in the open. The police have a right to defend themselves.

Now, this person was perceived to be intoxicated, and was quite belligerent. How do I know this person was told to lie down? The person made a statement to that effect in an interview on the Channel 10 web site. In spite of some people’s suggestion, this is not the only coverage of the story, or even the most accurate.

In the interview, the subject spoke of being told to lie down, and telling the officer no. That is, even if one believes the arrest is unjustified, resisting arrest, and well, that is not a good idea. And yes, even if one is otherwise, innocent, resisting arrest is a crime.

And a Taser is not electrocution. Electrocution is fatal, period. Even in the rare cases where a person who is tasered dies, it is not because of “electrocution.”

No one was engaging in a criminal activity. No one was being violent or threatening. No one was doing anything harmful to anyone else.

Until the police showed up. And THEY escalated the situation for whatever personal reasons motivate them.

Authority has a responsibility to wield force only when justified.

This was NOT one of those circumstances. We do not live in a theocracy, or a plutocracy, or a dictatorship, or a police state. We live in a democracy, until such time as We the People decide otherwise. And in OUR country, We the People have certain unalienable rights – like freedom of speech.

And Just Jennifer, perhaps if you refrained from being specious in your arguments and being argumentative just to be provoking, you’d be referred to as something more than a troll… a respectful devil’s advocate, perhaps.

That may be your opinion (regarding illegal activity) but that is a decision for a court to make. Once the rangers decided to make an arrest, resisting said arrest becomes a crime. Is this “fair”? Not really, but it is the law, and the alternative is unacceptable. Whether they “escalated” the situation, or not, the smart thing would have been to submit, and then deal with the charges in a proper manner. As soon as you start arguing with the police, you have made a very stupid mistake. Is this “right”? Maybe not, but the alternative is worse.

Sorry, but in this case, once the person refused an order of a peace officer, the force was justified. Because the alternative is not acceptable, we give the police relatively broad discretion in making an arrest. That is why we have trials. If this person thought they were doing no wrong, they should have submitted, and then dealt with the issue properly. Yes, it is unpleasant. But they would have had recourse, and they would not have been tasered. Instead, they went the belligerent route, and sorry, but that gave the police the upper hand, and made their actions justified.

If the police violated civil rights, there would have been a recourse. Now, there isn’t. Plain and simple.

Let me be clear…I believe in facts, and truth, not identity politics and “political correctness.” I have seen too many cases where the police did violate rights, and I have seen even more where people made the claim because they don’t believe they are subject to the rules that govern society.

I am disgusted by this action. I called the BLM office for that region and called for this Ranger to be removed from patrol. He is a danger to the public, at least people he dislikes!

People should call the Public Affairs office for the BLM police. Demand this Ranger be removed from patrol and a full investigation be done. Demand they not use tasers to punish people they personally dislike.

This is just sick. Also disgusting are the comments here saying citizens who do not immediately obey police deserve to be tazed!! Wow! Sounds like something you’d hear in a police state! (Well, maybe we do live in a police state).

You will notice, I have never used the word “deserved”. Please do not try to create straw arguments by putting words in my mouth. I said the police were legally justified. That is not the same as “deserved.” I said the person who was tasered made a foolish decision. That is not the same as saying they deserved to be tasered. I don’t know if the person had committed a crime, or not. But, even if an officer is making an arrest in error, resisting arrest is a crime. Again, that gives the police the upper hand. I don’t care whether you want to lay identity politics and pretend that a transgender person should be treated differently from anyone else, if they resist arrest, they have broken the law. And the police can legally act accordingly.

Fun fact, police are not allowed to use tasers in a carte blanche fashion just because an order was refused. There has to be a perceived threat of violence either by the actions of the person being questioned(which there obviously isn’t here) or by prior actions of the crime they’re suspected of(which once again there isn’t), the 9th circuit as already ruled on this more than enough and you don’t even need to search through their online case history since the whole Pepper Spraying cop incident more than enough case laws have been posted all around the internet to prove the police can’t follow their own laws and regulation. Science! errrr, I mean, case law!

So Jennifer can kindly be quiet now. There’s a reason you never hear about wealthy or famous people getting tased and/or pepper sprayed even in cases where they’ve been shown to be belligerently drunk to an officer and not following instructions. Cops often have serious power trips(Cops can be divided into two camps, those who genuinely feel they’re doing a good thing, and those who need power, either from being powerful in high school, or having been picked on in school and in need of revenge) and many want to use their “less than lethal force” is given any opportunity, they are smart enough to know though you don’t do it to people who have the resources to actually fight a legal case.

When a person is being placed under arrest, and they refuse to do what is requested, an officer can use whatever force is appropriate. If one is told to lie down, which reduces the possibility of attacking the officer while being handcuffed, and refuses, that is a possible threat of violence. THere was a reason the officer said to lie down. Under other circumstances, the person would be placed in the awkward position of leaning against a wall, but no wall was available. Refusing to lie down was not justified, and the police acted accordingly.

So, no, I will not be quiet. I am sorry if my words bother you, but feel free to argue your position, and I will argue mine. I can only assume from your rather humorous request that I be quiet that you know my position is correct.

No, the police do not have carte blanche, but that is not remotely an issue here. This was not “just an order,” but was an order during the process of a person being arrested. Now, be honest, if this person were not “transgender.” you wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. Oh, you might make some noises about police brutality, but you would not really care.

Again, identity politics are humorous, but not really very productive.

A blantant lie, and one easily exposed by a simple Google force. Tasers can only be used when the officer feels it is necessary to prevent violence, not for refusal to do whatever is requested. That is just simply not true.

Looks like “Just Jennifer” is either this officer’s wife or a police department representative spreading lies to confuse the public. But this was excessive force and the law is on the side of victim, not the officer, in this particular case.

There was not threat of violence. Only a completely delusional liar, like Just Jennifer, would say “not lying down when the officer tells you to lie down” is a threat of violence. Civil disobedience is, in fact, nonviolence. Even so, excessive force can only be used to stop actual violence, not maybe-possibly-could be-future-imaginary violence. And there is no proof such an order was given.

Just Jennifer is a liar, the police are in the wrong, and 90% of people who watch the video will recognize that because 90% of the people who watch the video have eyes, ears, and a brain, traits that the phony, lying “Just Jennifer” troll clearly lack.

The person was ordered to lie down. This would be for the officer’s protection during the arrest. The person refused. That is an indication that the person may plan to fight back. No, it is not justifiable for any refusal, but in this case, it was because violence was possible. If this were not a case involving someone who identifies as transgender, I doubt most here would raise an eyebrow.

And no, I have no connection to this officer, or to law enforcement. Quite frankly, it is an indication that you know you have no real arguments that you resort to such claims un an effort to dismiss someone who disagrees with you. You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with it. Deal with that.

Sorry, but when the police are in the process of arresting someone, refusing to cooperate IS a threat of violence. Seriously, how does the officer know that this person is not going to take a swing when they move in to handcuff them? How is he supposed to know that the person is not going to try to grab his gun? Such things DO happen. Officers who assume that the person is harmless often end up dead.

Not lying down was not an act of civil disobedience. And even if it was, one does not engage in civil disobedience without being ready to face the possible consequences.

Now, the fact that you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks Ii.e. calling me a liar, simply because I do not share your view) shows that you really have nothing to offer except a lot of noise. Oh well, thanks for playing, but no, we don’t have any lovely parting gifts for you. But it is amusing.

Just Jennifer is a self-loathing transwoman troll. Click on her name to see her blog, it’s nothing but hate and vitriol for “transgender extremists.” She makes excuses for the oppressors, she feels most transgender people did something to deserve the hate crimes incurred upon them. She is every inch an Uncle Tom, or an Aunt Tammy, if you will.
Jennifer, do the rest of the trans community a favor and get some therapy. Your insufferable internalized transphobia only makes the rest of us miserable.

So, let’s see… I don’t agree with the extremist view that one can change one’s gender, and perhaps even sex, by simply saying “I am now a woman…” (or “man”) so that makes me hateful and self-loathing? And no, I have NEVER said that victims did something to deserve hate crimes. I HAVE said that people should use common sense, and not assume that they will be safe just because they have a right to be safe. And I have criticized the near-worship that occurs ever November 20th. I have seen too many people killed because they simply did not take reasonable precautions. That is not blaming the victim….that is trying to warn people and hopefully prevent further murders. Oh wait, I see…you want those people to die, so they can become blessed martyrs to your cause. And I am the one who is hateful?

Oh, and for the record, I am a woman, not a “transwoman.” Got it? Woman. No modifier. You see, I didn’t go through everything to be anything other than a woman. That is your problem…I am not self-loathing. I didn’t transition to be “transgender.” I simply stopped pretending to be something I was not, and took steps to deal with the medical condition I suffered from, and corrected what I saw a birth defect.

So, please, save the cliche’s for someone who actually cares. I don’t.

I wish to express extreme outrage over the BLM Ranger Petter’s abuse of Brook Fantelli on November 17th 2011. On November 17th 2011 near El Centro 43-year-old Brooke Fantelli surrendered to BLM rangers with her hands above her head and was tasered for not laying in the dirt. Then while subdued on the ground Ms Fantelli was tasered a second time IN THE GENITALS.

The BLM Rangers addressed Ms Fantelli in male terms such as “thing” “it” “sir” and “dude” which was unnecessarily rude and unprofessional of them.

The BLM taunted Ms Fantelli after the fact by promising to investigate IF she complained. REALLY? Does that sound even remotely sincere? Why doesn’t the BLM investigate ALL shootings and acts of violence by ALL BLM staff?

I find the BLM actions reprehensible. The Rangers were violently abusive and unprofessional. The fact that the BLM defended these actions adds to the horror as it seems that we cannot feel safe on public lands where the rangers are a serious threat to our enjoyment of public lands. Unless BLM reprimands the actions of the rangers with discipline, training and policies, we cannot feel safe around BLM rangers.

Two point, Fantelli resisted arrest, and if said person was tasered a second time, it was while struggling. Your outrage, along with the rest here is based on this person identifying as transgender, not any real facts. I am not surprised the BLM has ignored the claims.

Simply put, there ARE cases of real police brutality. And they are often dealt with quite harshly. But when people engage in identity politics, and make hysterical (in more than one sense of the word) accusations simply because of someone’s identity, it makes for a good laugh, and not much more.

Right On Veronica! Well said, very good point of view from the Civil Rights side of things. Now I respect the police and would support them if asked but this was excessive force from moment one. You are so right, how can we feel safe in our own country when people in power abuse our rights? I can’t speak 100% for Ms Fantelli but from experience there are good and there are bad people of law enforcement, and when you come face to face with one it’s a roll of the dice how you will be treated. Doesn’t the BLM have their own version of Internal Investigations? Are they above the law? maybe in the officer’s mind he might have felt threatened but how can you feel that way when it’s 4 women and a camera again your gun?

First of all, we see only this one slice of what was apparently an interaction that lasted over an hour’s time. We can’t know what happened outside of this video. But what we see is an apparently-compliant person with hands raised being attacked with a stun device after turning and calling out, “take pictures.” On that basis alone, I’d love to see this employee fired.

On the other hand, what if the officer could say that he had repeatedly ordered the person to get down on the ground or to put their hands behind their back. In either of those cases, the tasering could be considered justified. So we just don’t know for sure.

As far as trying to make this a transgender thing, I don’t see it. The person looks like a man and sounds like a man. And the voice in the background keeps referring to him as, “Dad.” I’ve got to say, everyone in that group all sounds obnoxious.

Well, parr of what I base my comments on was an interview with this person on the Channel 10 website. In that view, the statement was made that the ranger gave an order to lie down, and the person said that they had no intention of doing that and refused to comply.

There are several aspects to this story that are quite odd, including the claim that this person was supposedly told by a therapist that one has to be transitioned for a period of time before being allowed to change one’s license. That seems odd at best. I certainly have never heard of any such rule.